Authority and Agnosticism

Mark 11:28-30, 33

And they said to him, "By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?" Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me...."

...So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

...............

The opposite of authority may be agnosticism. In this chapter, we see the authority of Jesus displayed in at least four ways:

1. Authority in Action. The triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple are perhaps the most authoritative moments in Jesus' earthly ministry. To demand a young colt and ride him into the big city to the resounding cheers of an adoring crowd was a clear statement of kingship in the Jewish culture. This was a coronation of the highest order - the enthronement of the long awaited messianic king, the son of David. Following this, Jesus walks into the center of Jewish religious life and drives out the merchants, essentially claiming authority over his Father's house and anyone in it.

2. Authority in Word. Not only did Jesus act like God and King, he spoke in like manner:

And he said to [the fig tree], "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it...

...And he was teaching them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."

...As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.
(Mark 11:2, 3, 14, 17, 20 ESV)

No plant or person is immune to the powerful words of Christ. We find elsewhere in Scripture that Christ in fact spoke the universe into existence and holds it all together simply with his word (Heb. 1:3). His verbal authority is unmatched and should give us pause when we disregard his words of warning or fail to fully believe his wonderful promises (Heb. 2:1).

3. Authority in Prayer. I think Jesus may want us to be less impressed with showy displays of authority, and more impressed with the kind of faith that asks God to move mountains and expects it to happen. The strength of our faith in prayer correlates directly with the genuineness of our belief in the power and goodness of God. Let us not fail to convey to the world how strong and real God is by mouthing weak and uncertain words in our prayers. In this way Jesus is calling us to reflect his authority by calling on it with confidence (Heb. 4:16).

4. Authority in Question. Finally, after these several public expressions of his authority, those who have thought of themselves as the highest authorities begin to question Jesus openly. In his own unique way, Jesus pushes the burden of proof back on them, questioning their knowledge and authority, and forces them to admit defeat in four simple words: "we do not know." Here is where I see signs that our modern world's embrace of agnosticism runs completely counter to the good authority displayed in Jesus. We have romanticized uncertainty to the extent that we have become powerless, and this has sadly affected the church, myself included. In truth, by questioning our faith ad nauseam we reflect to the world an uncertain god with an uncertain promise.

Lord God Almighty, I confess my weakness and uncertainty and today I claim your power and confidence, not because of anything I have to offer, but entirely because of your sure and certain promise of salvation. I stand on you, my solid rock. Thank you for demonstrating your love for me while I was still dead and blind in my sin. Now I am alive in You, and I walk in confident faith, and in the authority that is mine through Christ my Savior. Amen.

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness
I dare not trust the sweetest frame
But wholly lean on Jesus' name
On Christ the Solid Rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand
All other ground is sinking sand

Flight Report

Matthew 2:13

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."

...............

Getting a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies from a public university has had its advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, I've been given a glimpse into a method of biblical interpretation that has raised important questions and often provided reasonable answers. My credibility as a Christian, I hope, has increased because of my familiarity with higher criticism, source criticism, etc. On the other hand, because of my experiences in the classroom (studying the New Testament under a Jewish professor, for instance) I have had to face subjects like Matthew's Infancy narrative and scratch my head a little bit.

Critics of "biblical inerrancy" often misunderstand what is being claimed by those who deny any errors in Scripture. If I believe that Matthew 2 is absolutely without error (in the original Greek), then it is claimed that I am blind to the authorial restructuring and the obvious literary retooling that the author engaged in to make his theological point (that Jesus is the new Moses, fulfilling prophecy and ushering in Messiah's kingdom). The misunderstanding is located in this obviously ridiculous premise: that historically inerrant texts must be disorganized, devoid of the author's personality, and have no interest in theological agendas. Sounds like the (impossible) constraints of historical objectivity being forced upon the written text.

The two most contested issues in Matthew 2 are the "Flight to Egypt" and the "Massacre of the Innocents." The historicity of the first (2:13-15) is questioned for its apparently "forced" parallel with the nation of Israel, orchestrated by Matthew in order to fulfill the Hosea prophecy. There is also the dilemma of this account being completely absent from Luke's version of the infancy narrative. The historicity of the second (2:16-18) is also questioned due to the claim that such an important event surely would have been recorded somewhere outside the Bible, though no such evidence has ever been found.

These objections have answers: the journey of one ancient family and the infanticide of one very small village were probably too insignificant to be noticed by contemporary historians like Josephus. As mentioned earlier, the "forced" parallel to Old Testament prophecy does reflect a theological agenda, but this does not necessitate it being historically false or untrustworthy. In fact, what we do know about the times (i.e. Herod's notoriety as a violently unstable ruler) seems to corroborate the biblical account.

Perhaps what is more important than these specific questions is the more fundamental issue of authority: Where do we get our basis for discerning Truth? The Bible itself claims to be such a basis for finding Truth. Modern interpretative methods, like academic higher criticism, certainly do not. Our finite historical knowledge, though substantial, must always submit to the final authority of God's infinite knowledge, which has been unchangeably revealed in Scripture.